Follow on Twitter
Subscribe by RSS
MORRIS COUNTY, N.J.—(OiP)— Yesterday a New Jersey judge dismissed a lawsuit by a Rockaway lawyer who claimed “Kyleigh’s Law“, signed by Gov. Corzine in April 2009, is unconstitutional. “Kyleigh’s Law,” requires teen drivers with learner’s permits or provisional licenses to display orange decals on their license plates.
NJ Teens Against “Kyleigh’s Law” Teen Driving Restrictions on Facebook currently has 8,180 members. Just this weekend, the wind got knocked out of the activist group when a New Jersey judge upheld the law that is causing quite a stir throughout the Greater Area.
In Morrison County Superior Court on March 5th, Attorney Gregg Trautmann argued that the law is unconstitutional because the orange decals are a “Scarlet Letter” of age discrimination against teen drivers and would become malicious targets of the Police and sexual predators who would take advantage of the new implemented system on May 1st.
“Operating a motor vehicle is not a right, it’s a privilege subject to state regulations. Kyleigh’s Law does not violate the constitutions of the United States or New Jersey,” Judge Robert Brennan said in response to the lawsuit according to The Star-Ledger.
Despite the lawsuit being dismissed by the judge, the Facebook group remains optimistic in their statements:
Yes…the law was passed. No…this fight isn’t over. In fact, we’re closer to having this law repealed than we were having it not get signed.
A recently launched website has also reached the attention of thousands of concerned citizens, aptly named StopKyleighsLaw.org. According to their mission statement, the idea is that it’s a “dangerous precedent” and “should be repealed”.
“The most controversial of these new policies is the orange hang tag / sticker requirement, which announces to everyone that a young and inexperienced driver is at the wheel of a specific vehicle,” the organization writes about the new teen driving law.
On the other side of things, there are some who believe Kyleigh’s Law should be passed.
“Kyleigh’s Law should be passed and learn to teach teenagers this day and age, that once you have any type of driving permit/license, it doesn’t mean you can do what you want and feel like you will always get away with it. Too many people, teens especially, die each year due to the stupidity of drivers. At least 4,300 teens ages 16-19 die each year in vehicular accidents. This number is way too high, and teens need to be aware of it. PLEASE SPREAD THE WORD!!!” writes a Facebook Group ‘Kyleigh’s Law Should Be Passed’.
No other hazard is responsible to claiming as many teenage lives, not even teen homicide or suicides according to NHTSA.
Another statistic from the NHTSA claims that not only are the lives claimed an issue, but so are the injuries, with an estimated 300,000 teens injured in car crashes annually.
Is Kyleigh’s Law unconstitutional because it discriminates against teen drivers, and reveals all teens on the road to Law Enforcement and citizens alike?
-Or-
Is teen driving truly a deadly epidemic that led way to ‘Kyleigh’s Law’ that adheres to state laws & the constitution, legally enforcing Teen Driving as a privledge, not a right?
10 Comments
In my opinion Kyleigh’s Law is unconstitutional for reasons but also just the safety of our teens worries me. The first is the orange decals they will be like a big sign saying to police and all other people “Hi, I am only 16 or 17!!!”, my younger sister is in that age range and I do not want her targeted by anyone every time she gets in the car starting in May. This threatens a teens right to be secure in their persons or belongings based on the 4th amendment. My other big problem with the law is the fact that you can not plea bargain any violation which is a violation of the 5th amendment. And finally the idea that if a teen messes up once, speeding or not fully stopping at a stop sign they should loose their license for at least 5 months is excessive. This violates the 8th amendment which state “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed…” I believe these are real constitutional issues that whether driving is a privilege or a right, should factor into a laws legality.
When I got my license I had to deal with the “Cinderella” curfew and it honestly was not that bad, if the law that is currently in place was strictly enforce NJ would not have had to deal with this. What people forget is that Kyleigh was in a car with 3 other people when the 17-yr old driver should have only have 1 or 2 (since 1 was his brother). I mean no disrespect to her memory but everyone should know the real facts and not just act as though it was because the driver was 17. Please if you want to know some facts look up the accident and read what Gregg Trautmann has to say.
This Law is unconsitutional, Teen drivers are just the same as anyother driver on the road. This is a total discrimation towards 17 year olds. Decals are going to just be a Huge advistiment that therea a younger driver in the car, which lores in predators, and lead to even harrassment on the road. Teen drivers already have restrictions on provisional liscenses, There is no need to change the curfew to 11. Maybe since This law is coming to affect Maybe this state should start making decals mandatory for sex predators, drunk drivers, and for the eldery. Teens are discrimated when it comes to drivng when really there are only a select few of teens that cant follow the rules and dont want to be responsble but there are many young adults, adults and eldery people who don’t follow rules and arent responsible. This Law needs to be repealed, and they should do more to prepare teens with premits for driving in stead of restricting teens that all ready have there liscences.
This law is completly wrong. it targets teens just because of their age. also, teens who have been driving are used to the current laws we already have. I know many teens who are better drivers than some adults, one bad driver and one crazy mom has to ruin it for everyone elese. The sticker labels teens and cops will pull them over just so they can make their end of the month quota. Furthermore, the tags make it a lable for petafiles to come and get these teens, are we just going to wait for the first rape to happen to repeal this law or are we going to take early action and repeal it now!. I feel this is very unconsitutional and discriminates people just because they are younger. Lastly, I have to say many busunessess will loose maney because many 20-21 yr. olds go out to clubs, parties etc. and this places will loose many because teens cant be out late anymore. I feel that this law is completlyl wrong is just another wrong way for the state to make some quick money, praying on the people who can do the least about it. It is completly unfair and need to be repealed.
This law is making young people a target for anyone who would prey on them. They don’t even have to go looking for them. All they need to do is sit at the mall and watch them go in and out. Then either take them or follow them home.
How about the 11pm part of this law. We can send our young adults over seas to die in combat but they can’t come home and drive to a movie if it gets out after 11pm? Ludicrous!. My children range in age from 17 – 36 and I have seen some of their friends die in auto accidents. Not even one would have been saved because of a ridiculous law like this.
Corzine is a rotten bureaucrat and a law like this proves it. I hope on May 1, the people of NJ flat out refuse to obey the law. What will the cops do, arrest and fine everyone?
The interesting thing is John Corzine tried to pass this exact same law nearly two years ago, but was met with a lot of opposition, and it went back under the rug. But suddenly it resurfaced, they slapped somebody’s name on it, and suddenly it is a pressing issue that needs to be addressed. This kind of self-centered wanting re-election feel-good stuff makes me sick.
how is putting a sticker on my plates and telling me to go home at 11 going to stop me from getting killed in an accident?
The courts in NJ have been for years in the pockets of the politicians so even though they say it is constitutional doesn’t mean that it really is. I will not have my child put the decal on her car. This is a flag for every pedophile to bump the car and cause it to pull over. It is also a flag for the police to harass the new drivers.
Kyleigh would not have been saved by anything in this law. She died with only one other person in the car, the driver, who was speeding! The law made Kyleigh’s mom feel like she did something just as it did with every politician who signed on to it. Law makers are just looking for ways to make them look good, not actually solve problems.
Wow…this law is terrible. Just because they put Kyleigh’s name on the law everybody seems to be supporting it. Red stickers don’t save lives, seatbelts do. And if we should have to put decals on our license plates, so should senior citizens who can’t drive for anything, so should child predators (as a part of their parol, and for the rest of their driving years) You see how obnoxious and absurd this law can continue onto. It’s not fair that you have to signal us out, just because we have lives, unlike the people who passed this dumb law, doesn’t mean you have the right to take that away from us. Seriously, do you think Kyleigh would be happy about this if she were still with us?
I have had the misfortune to be a “Provisional/Probationary” driver under both the old GLD laws and “Kyleigh’s Law”. I come from the area of New Jersey where Ms. D’Alessio lived, and while it was a tragedy, the facts of the accident that caused her death have been improperly repesented to the public. First, there were too many passengers for the 17 year old driver, under both sets of laws. Second, the accident was alcohol related. While it is true that “Provisional/Probationary” drivers are 17, and have only been driving up to 2 years max (at the end of the probationary period) only up to 1 of which was as an unsupervised motor vehicle operator, this law unfairly makes the assumption that with inexperience comes a total lack of skill.
The restrictions under Kyleigh’s Law include:
Requiring all drivers under 21 with a “Provisional/Probationary” license to display a reflective red sticker on their front and rear license plates of any vehicle they are operating. This makes an OBVIOUS indication that the driver is young. This makes it easier for not only sexual predators, but police officers as well. I have heard from several sources that there are officers who believe in being tougher on young drivers to correct their mistakes early. And the fact that it signals sexual predators is a hallowing thought in itself, that the government would do this and then deny that it does so. The New Jersey government had released several statements saying that the are not concerned with the fact that sexual predators will have been given an easier system of locating marks. It also goes without saying that these decals are discriminatory not only by the persons experience, those with Provisional/Probationary licenses, but also by age, those 21 and younger with P/P licenses.
Limiting the number of passengers to ONE non-family member, plus anyone in the driver’s family. This clause of the law is a major sticking point with the above restriction because how is a police officer supposed to know who is related and not related to a teen driver. I have personally been part of a motor vehicle stop TWICE because I had my girlfriend and my sister in the car with me together. And on both occassions the officers gave me suspicious looks after I explained that it was my sister, or offered to call my mom to confirm; because my sister, 15, has no form of identification she carries with her regularly. And the other bone of contention I have with this clause is that having too many passengers is a PRIMARY offense now, meaning that an officer can stop a driver with the Kyleigh’s Law decals for seeing more than one passenger. Before it was a secondary offense, meaning there had to be another reason for the motor vehicle stop and after seeing the drivers license designating them a “Provisional/Probationary” driver, they could add a charge of “Excessive Passengers.”
Driver’s must not drive between 11:00pm and 5:00am. This clause makes the curfew one hour earlier than previous. While this makes sense for drivers in urban areas like Trenton, Camden and Jersey City, where there is a large “nightlife” of clubs and bars for drinking, leading to higher incidence of DUI and DWI charges. However, in suburban areas like where Ms. D’Alessio of Washington Township, Bergen County was from, it is more of an inconvenience than an actual safety precaution. For myself, my friends and I often are together hanging out until well after 11:00, meaning that at 11:00 I have to drive my car home, put it in the driveway and either have my parents drive me back or have a friend follow me and drive me back.
Other new restrictions include prohibiting the use of mobile devices including by use of a Bluetooth device. This makes sense, but I personally find no difficulty using my bluetooth and driving, it operates hands-free and all I have to do is speak allowing me to keep my full attention on the roadway, although I can understand and do not disapprove of this limitation. Also all passengers are required wear seat belts in a vehicle operated by a “P/P” driver, which is also an understandable safety precaution that I cannot find any fault with.
These are just my personal opinions on the matter as someone who has experienced both sets of rules. All the clauses of the law mentioned here are factual as are all other facts, but again I have included by opinion on the matter. On the whole, I think that Kyleigh’s Law is not only unconstitutional much as the Jim Crow Laws were, but they are in some places more of a threat to the teen drivers than the drivers are to themselves. These laws place a stigma and discriminatory label on young drivers, and if we are singled out why aren’t other groups of risky drivers like the elderly, sexual predators, those with anger and psychological issues, addicts, alcoholics, etc?